Archive for the ‘From Dagny’ Category

Second Amendment defended by Supervisors in El Dorado and Siskiyou Counties in California

February 23, 2013 3 comments

Here is the resolution from the El Dorado Board of Supervisors:

WHEREAS, the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, as part of United States Bill of Rights, ratified on December 15, 1791, protects the right of the people to keep and bear Arms; and,
WHEREAS, two landmark decisions issued by the United States Supreme Court established that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that Arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as, but not limited to, self-defense within the home, and that the right could not be infringed by the federal government (District of Columbia v. Heller); and that under the Fourteenth Amendment the right to keep and bear Arms was incorporated and would also prohibit state and local governments from infringement of the
right (McDonaldv. City ofChicago); and,
WHEREAS, sadly, recent high profile events within our country have sparked discussions of gun-control at the local, state and federal levels and include numerous gun-control proposals that assert to address gun violence while, in fact, many of these proposals would directly infringe upon the Second Amendment rights; and,
WHEREAS, the County ofEI Dorado’s economy and rural quality are supported by ranching, farming and natural resources, and that the right to keep and bear Arms is fundamental to our right to protect our families, our property, our livestock, and our livelihood, and that the residents of this County respect the rights afforded by the Second Amendment through the recognition and support of responsible firearm ownership, training and awareness; and,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of the County ofEI Dorado supports all discussions seeking new ideas to protect our citizens from violence but cannot abide by any provision infringing upon the Second Amendment.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of El Dorado at a regular meeting of said Board, held the 29th day of January, 2013, by the following vote of said Board:
Ayes:veerkamp, Mikalaco, Nutting, Briggs

Fully executed Resolution 006-2013-2.pdf

Here is the similar resolution from the Siskiyou County Board of Supervisors:

Res 13-19 support 2nd amend.pdf

Perhaps your Board of Supervisors would also consider such a resolution.  Please bring it to their attention.


Categories: From Dagny

The Birth Certificate Game

August 27, 2012 12 comments

There was a fraud perpetrated by a President of the United States.  He was not a natural born citizen so he obfuscated his nativity story.  He had all his relevant records destroyed to cover up his fraud, and he and his supporters got away with it.

Does this sound like our current occupant of the White House?  Actually, it was another president:  Chester A. Arthur, the 21st President of the United States.  He attained office due to the assassination of President Garfield.  This was in spite of the fact that he was not a natural born citizen, in violation of the US Constitution, Article 2, Section 1.  His father was not a US citizen at the time of his birth. The fraud was not discovered until long after his death.

Only two classes of Citizen are recognized by the US Constitution. The first is a Citizen. Whether by birth or naturalization, all Citizens share the same rights and privileges. The other is a Natural Born Citizen, a separate class defined by different legal conditions and with different privileges, specifically eligibility to the offices of President and Vice President.

Wikipedia’s page on the subject of Natural Born Citizen claims that this term was never defined in law, that we must divine the Founders’ intended meaning by reviewing myriad, conflicting opinions and comments in court cases. This is simply not true. The Founders legislated their definition of that term just two years after the Constitution was ratified, providing clear meaning for a requirement of the highest office of the land. One would expect no less of them:

“And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens” – Naturalization Act 1790

Taking a critical look at this Congressional legislation, we see that “the children of citizens” is an absolute requirement. There are no qualifiers. No exception is made for the child of a non-citizen. The Founders’ definition extends to those who may be born outside the limits of the United States as well. They understood that ambassadors such as Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson would spend years abroad in service to their country, possibly with their families, and did not want to disqualify their own children born during such service.

The US Constitution, written by the Founders, requires the status of Natural Born Citizen to be eligible for the Presidency. This requirement can only be removed through the Amendment process. While the original 1790 Naturalization Act was repealed and replaced by later legislation redefining the means by which one could become a Citizen, the Founders’ intended meaning of Natural Born Citizen still stands.

You can repeal a law, but you can’t repeal evidence, and the Naturalization Act of 1790 is unequivocal evidence of exactly what the US Congress meant by “Natural Born Citizen”.

Some conveniently insist that the 1790 law is no longer in effect or that it does not provide a currently applicable legal definition. Yet, when doubts were raised about the eligibility of John McCain in the 2008 election, the US Senate referenced that law to confirm his status:

“…as evidenced by the First Congress’s own statute defining the term `natural born Citizen’ …  Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That John Sidney McCain, III, is a `natural born Citizen’ under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States.” – Senate Resolution 511

Birth to US Citizens was thus recognized, in 2008, as the primary condition for Natural Born Citizen status. The Panama Canal Zone was under US Sovereignty until 1977.  McCain was born under US Jurisdiction as surely as if he had been born in New Jersey. However, he still had to meet the requirement of birth to Citizen parents to qualify.  The definition in the law remains in effect.

Whenever posted, the text of the 1790 law is promptly removed from the Wikipedia page, as it is inconvenient to those trying to cloud the issue and confuse the general public.  Furthermore, when this information was posted at a forum owned by a former subsidiary of the New York Times, not only was the posting removed, but perhaps coincidentally, the entire forum was permanently shut down overnight. There has been a concerted effort to keep this information out of the public eye.

There have been no fewer than eight Congressional attempts to remove the Natural Born Citizen requirement from the Presidency since 2003, mostly by Democrats.  The only Republican to sponsor them attempted to remove the natural born citizen requirement twice and reduce the citizenship requirement to 20 years. This would in fact nullify the Constitution without the lawful amendments process.  All these attempts failed.

We can see that the Founders’ primary intent was that neither parent be a foreign national, which makes good sense. This minimizes the likelihood that either parent will pass down foreign loyalties or ideology to the would-be President that would dilute his bond with his countrymen and his nation’s principles. Case in point, the fellow illegally in the White House today who demonstrates abundant foreign loyalties and ideologies hostile to America.

The birth certificate provided by Barack Obama is an obviously altered document, according to multiple digital forensics experts.  Have you ever wondered why such a blatant forgery was presented?  Were the Obama handlers that incompetent?  Didn’t anybody in the White House care that such a shoddy piece of photoshop work was made public?

The answer lies within our legal system. Obama and his DNC/Holder Justice lawyers are notorious for using the mechanisms of the system to gain power and abuse it, thwarting the law in the process. This is a part of their strategy.

In fact, the ongoing furor over the place of birth is exactly what Obama wants. It is a red herring, a distraction from the fact he cannot legally be a Natural Born Citizen no matter where he was born.

Some have argued that Obama is the result of an affair in Hawaii by Ann Dunham with communist agitator Frank Marshall Davis (a US citizen born in Kansas) – see Dreams of My Real Father. If that were true, it would make Obama a natural born citizen.

However, mere illegitimacy would be unlikely to justify the expense and risk Obama has taken to hide his past. Furthermore, the details of the alleged birth certificate presented by Mr. Obama himself, if false, are a poorly chosen lie because they disqualify him from the Presidency.

It is Barack Obama’s foreign parent – Barack Hussein Obama, Sr. – that disqualifies him. The Democrat-controlled Senate knew this in 2008 when McCain’s eligibility as a Natural Born Citizen was legally resolved. They did not do the same for Obama precisely because he could not meet the legal requirements.

Barack Obama has gone to great lengths to stir up controversy over his place of birth while preventing legal resolution of his eligibility. He could easily provide court access to his original documents but that would, according to the laws above, work against him. That’s why he instead has teams of lawyers scrambling to block any court case seeking access to his original birth documents. Obama’s place of birth is an intentional distraction.

These antics began in mid-2008, well before the election, when Democrat attorney Philip Berg attempted to determine the eligibility of his own party’s candidate. Obama’s obstructionist response revealed Obama’s own knowledge of his legal problem, though the mainstream news media willfully concealed it from the general public and derided anyone who would bring it up as a “Birther”.

“Instead of satisfying Plaintiff and the general public’s concerns regarding Obama’s citizenship status, or lack thereof, Obama and the DNC have chosen to litigate the matters in lieu of providing what should be simple proof. Defendants have filed two [2] Motions to Dismiss and a Motion for a Protective Order instead of simply solving the matters and providing the proof verifying Obama’s citizenship status.” – Berg v. Obama et al

A Judge vetting Obama’s eligibility can only rule based on the legal evidence presented to the court. If Obama’s true birth certificate is presented, then the Judge can take legal notice that Obama’s father was not a US Citizen and disqualify Barack Obama from eligibility for the Presidency.

Obama’s people understood this well in advance and ensured that the only copies of his birth documents that might be obtained by plaintiffs against him were easily identified as “altered” documents, therefore easily disputed as proof in a court of law. It’s a fair bet his own attorneys would dispute their evidentiary value just as they absurdly proclaimed in a Florida court that Obama is not yet the Democrat candidate for 2012 and is therefore immune to lawsuits demanding his eligibility be resolved.

A President of the United States illegally took office while violating the Natural Born Citizen requirements.  Not only could it happen; it did happen. Twice.  It is a part of history.  Barack Obama is not the first to perpetrate that fraud but this time the consequences are more dire.  With the news media and cowardly politicians concealing this fact, will the American People be fooled yet a third time?

Victor Sayre is principal author and co-authored this with Dagny.

Categories: From Dagny


June 29, 2012 2 comments

Remember Chief Justice Marshall said: “That the power of taxing it [the bank] by the States may be exercised so as to destroy it, is too obvious to be denied”, and “That the power to tax involves the power to destroy … [is] not to be denied”.

According to the ruling they can tax you for what you do, and what you don’t do, and what you have, and what you don’t have. It is all in the power of Constitutional Congress.

So they can tax you for being gay.
They can tax you for being straight.
They can tax you for being white.
They can tax you for being black.
They can tax you for not being a vegetarian.
They can tax you for blogging things considered hate speech.
They can tax you for being a Republican.
They can tax you for not being a Republican.

And so on.

That should scare the **** out of people.

This power has always been there. The power was used with some fig leaf of restraint until now.

It was always true, but now it is obvious.

It may be triggering the sea change we have been waiting for. Whether that was by design by Chief Justice Roberts, or whether somebody got to him with a credible threat we may never know.

The SCOTUS also ruled against the Stolen Valor Act and the Arizona case. The Stolen Valor decision made it legal for people to pretend to be war heroes with Purple Hearts etc. The only people this benefitted were those leftist slime balls who show up at protests against wars etc. pretending to be war heroes with their phony Purple Hearts. The beneficiaries of the Arizona decision were obviously Sinaloa and drug gangs.

They all point to influence by the hard left and their affiliated criminal organizations such as Sinaloa. Only 4 months ago a Supreme Court Justice (Breyer) was robbed by a machete wielding man while on vacation. That should not have happened.  In 2004 Justice Souter was assaulted by a gang of thugs and beaten. That too should not have happened. Where was the security detail? The SCOTUS and their families are obviously vulnerable.

Remember Bush caved on many things shortly after his daughter was robbed while on vacation. I suspect that controlling the security means controlling everything. Please refer to these older articles:

Part 1 The Many Ways to Bribe Politicians
Part 2 The Dominican Connection
Part 3 The Leftist Criminal Elite’s Tropical Paradise
Part 4 The Curious Assistance of the Bush White House
and Obama and the Sinaloa Drug Cartel or
Fast and Furious Favors

Categories: From Dagny

This is a Revolution, not a Revolving Door

January 27, 2012 Leave a comment

Excerpted from “Newt Ramps up Rhetoric”. This is what it takes to win a revolution:
Newt Gingrich lashed out at Mitt Romney in Mount Dora Thursday, saying the former Massachusetts governor is guilty of lies, desperation and hypocrisy that should make “every American angry.”
“I am running for president to represent you, not to represent the Washington lobbyists, not to represent Goldman Sachs, not to represent the people who have been ruining this country,” Gingrich said. “And I need your help.”
Accompanied by his wife Callista, the North Lake Tea Party-endorsed candidate received cheers as he vowed to shake up the Washington establishment.
“Remember, the Republican establishment is just as much as the Democratic establishment, and they are just as determined to stop us,” Gingrich said.
“We were drowned in a sea of mud in Iowa,” he said. “Mud paid for with special-interests money, money paid for by lobbyists in Washington and a candidate who was willing to say anything and do anything because he is so desperate to be president that he doesn’t think that the truth matters.
“But, I’m here as a citizen. I frankly don’t care what the Washington establishment thinks of me, because I intend to change them.”
“He [Romney] owns a Goldman Sachs subsidiary, which is foreclosing on Floridians,” Gingrich said.
“Michael Reagan has endorsed me,” Gingrich said of the son of President Ronald Reagan. “In 1995, at the Goldwater Institute, Nancy Reagan said that Ronald Reagan’s torch had been passed to me as speaker of the House and that I was carrying the values he believed in.”
“During that entire period, Mitt Romney was a money-making Independent,” Gingrich said. “He had no interest in politics; he wasn’t involved in helping save the country.”
He added that in 1992, Romney gave money to the Democrats running for Congress, and voted in the Democratic presidential primary for Paul Tsongas, “the most liberal candidate.”
“This is a man (Romney) who questions my credentials as a Reagan aide?” Gingrich said. “This is the kind of gall they have to think we’re so stupid and we’re so timid? That we’ll let somebody who voted for Paul Tsongas. In 1994, (Tsongas) was running to the U.S. Senate to the left of Teddy Kennedy. Do you know how hard it is to run to the left of Teddy Kennedy?”
“I don’t think Gov. Romney could last in a debate with Barack Obama,” Gingrich said. “We need a solid conservative who can stand there and look straight in the eyes of the president and say ‘Mr. President, you are wrong and your policies are fake.”
Several in audience responded by chanting in unison: “Taxed enough already.”  “I promise you,” Gingrich added, “I am going to fight every day to the end until we win this nomination.”

We need a candidate who is truly hated by the Establishment Elite on the left and the right. Only that kind of fire in the belly can burn out the incestuous Washington establishment on both sides of the aisle. Sarah Palin was and is that hated. Herman Cain was hated as much as they dared hate a black man.

Newt is clearly hated, but he has the strength to stand up to it. He has already been to heck and back in Washington so he does not fear them. He knows the enemy by personal name. He knows what they are. He does not need their approval. He needs their destruction. So do we.

We need an experienced fighter on our side

January 9, 2012 3 comments
Some have said Newt is too angry to win.  Frankly, anyone not angry is out of touch with what is going on.  We need a president who understands and cares enough to be angry.  We need a fighter.
Everyone is flawed in some way – but that doesn’t mean they cannot be great, necessary, and even vital to our future.

Where are the 1%?

January 5, 2012 Leave a comment

“It only takes $34,000 per person to be amid the richest 1% of people in the world.

Clearly, the US has created more financially OK people than almost the whole rest of the world combined. How many of the people who are rich in these other countries are dependent on the US market or US defense expenditures? If America falters a lot of wealth will be destroyed world wide.

Categories: Economics, From Dagny

Happy New Year to You and a Storm Warning for Asia

January 1, 2012 Leave a comment

I hope you have a Happy, Safe and Prosperous New Year ahead.

Unfortunately the Norks will have none of the above in the near term. After the horrendous currency debacle of 2009, Kim Jong Ill had a scapegoat executed and abandoned the economic insanity of their “currency reform”. Kim Jong-eun learned nothing from that disaster:

The latest from Free North Korea Radio:

At 3 PM, Dec. 30, Kim Jong-eun gave an order in the name of late Kim Jong-il saying, “The use of all foreign currencies including dollar and Reminbi will be banned. It warned that the punishment for violation can be as severe as death sentence,” according to our sources.

But they do have a new gold and silver coin, new currency, and a new stamp:

Can starvation and complete unrest be far behind? There is no faster way to foment revolution than this.

Those on the inside loyal to Kim Jong-eun will be given the new currency. Those who challenge him will be killed for using the old currency or will be broke and starving. Suddenly they all face a hard choice: support the brat or die or fight.

The people remember from less than 3 years ago what this means for the masses: starvation. How long before the people imagine roasting that fat pig on a spit?

We have our own challenges here in America, but they pale compared to this. Things will get interesting militarily and economically near China in 2012.